choof.org
Welcome to choof.org. Unfair. Unbalanced.
Trent
Reznor
Nine Inch Nails
Emma
Goldman
Emma Goldman
Che
Guevara
Che Guevara
James
Joyce
James Joyce
Huey
Newton
To Die for the People
Ride the
clipper
The Sexist Clipper
Adbusters Adbusters
Buy! Shop!
UGA SGA
Archive
UGA SGA
An
Organization
Archive
An Organization
E-mail
Chris
E-mail Chris

More Links

Reenhead
Memepool
Robot Wisdom
Daily Rotten
Boing Boing
Politechbot
Declan's Pics
Cryptome
Richard Stallman
Seth Schoen
Earth Liberation Front
Lisa Rein's Radar
How Appealing
Stay Free
Mary Hodder
Bad Ads Weblog
Commercial Alert
Ponderance
Adrian Pritchett
Jenny Toomey
Simson Garfinkel

Archive

December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004












Choof.org "News"

December 14, 2003

Bill Moyers on Federal Preemption ot State Consumer Protection

Bill Moyer's NOW has had the first real coverage of a very important consumer protection issue that I work on: the problem of the federal government preempting state consumer protection law. The spam legislation that just passed, for instance, could be seen as a spam legalization law, as it preempted California's much more stringent protections. In a way, the bill is spam protection legislation. It sets out standards that actually give spam advertising more protection than other forms of marketing.

In the context of financial services, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is trying to stop state AGs from enforcing laws against national banks or their subsidiaries! For more information, see OCC Watch and the comments written by EPIC in opposition to preemption of state enforcement.

The full transcript of Moyers show is online:

MOYERS: Something is going on here because the see-saw is moving
again because when Massachusetts ruled recently in favor of gay
marriage, Washington started asking for… calling for national
standards on marriage. In the new bill that just has been passed to
try to protect us against excessive spam there's a little provision
in there which says that you, at the state level, cannot pass laws
on spam protection stronger than Washington.





SPITZER: That's right. There has been historically this huge
tradition, 200 years of debate between state and federal powers that
goes back to the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation.
All the way back. But the odd thing is Bill that dating to the days
of President Reagan, the more conservative world view had been give
power back to the states.




Now, suddenly it appears they've changed their tune and they're
trying to say, "No, we don't like it. We don't like what we're
seeing when states get active in exercising that power." They want
to suddenly change their argument and say, "Limit state power. We
don't want state prosecution. State enforcement of the law. Bring
all the power back to Washington."




[...]

MOYERS: You're asking for tougher measures than Washington wants to
impose, right.

SPITZER: Yes.

MOYERS: I mean, it is…

SPITZER: But also just trying to enforce the law that's been there
parenthetically since the days that President Nixon. President Nixon
signed this bill and agreed with us on this matter.

MOYERS: It is a strange and brave new world when liberal Democrats
and liberal Republicans are advocating states rights and the
conservatives who control Washington are advocating stringent…

SPITZER: It is…

MOYERS: …federal…

SPITZER: I don't use the word states' rights. Because I still think
there's a tinge to that phrase that evokes memories that I think are
not the one's we want to evoke. I think there needs to be an
appropriate balance between the states and the federal government.
But where there are voids, where you withdraw from your appropriate
function and cede the turf to us, we have no choice but to jump into
that void to bring the enforcement actions that are needed to
protect the public, whether it's the integrity of the stock market
or our environment.

MOYERS: Elliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of New York, thank you
for being on NOW.

SPITZER: Thank you so much.

Posted by chris at December 14, 2003 12:17 PM

Comments

States should move forward to assert their rights. However, moving against the federal government is apparently seen as blasphemy in an irrational way, and that ridiculousness should be overcome. The federal government has the power to maintain a good balance between states and itself, so there should be no worry that a little resistance to get federal policy back in line is going to hurt the system. I'm surprised that Washington still allows the use of the word "federal" at this point; state leaders should remember why the word is used.

Posted by: Adrian Pritchett at December 14, 2003 01:11 PM

The trend to pass federal legislation that, rather than setting a minimum standard, is setting a maximum standard, makes the role of states (and those who are elected/appointed to office in them) impotent. The transcript (strongly recommend reading it in its entirety)notes similar efforts underway in environmental regulation. And the trend towards "deregulation" in the utility and financial services industries, regulations that were implemented during FDR's admin. to provide barriers to protect consumers, has only lead to serious harm to those end users. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read between the lines and determine whose interests are being represented.

Posted by: at December 14, 2003 02:44 PM

highest quality replica jewelry Rolex watch, wrist watch, Replica Watch purchase your affordable realistic Rolex replica watch today at http://www.pro-rolex-replica-watches.com

Posted by: Rolex Replica at December 7, 2004 01:06 AM
Post a comment














Archive | Pictures

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.11